Prayers in public schools has become a controversial issue. The case presented in the Supreme Court involving Santa Fe School District vs. Doe offers a perfect example of this issue. The Supreme Court restated that public schools prayer promoted by the state was unconstitutional, even when argued in less invasive settings. However, the Court explained that students who sincerely voluntary pray in schools are permissible constitutionally. Before 1995, student leader elected at Santa Fe School District became a chaplain and would customarily give Christian Prayer over a loudspeaker at the stadium during school's football games (530 U.S. 290, 2000). A plaintiff, Doe filed a lawsuit against (Defendant) Santa Fe Independent School District based on the abuse of the First Amendment of the Establishment Clause by permitting prayer before games at the school. After litigation, Santa Fe modified the policy to allow but not necessarily requiring initiated prayer by the student at all football tournaments in the school. However, the District Court revised the policy to approve only non-sectarian and non-proselytizing prayer. Despite the District Court amending the dogma, the Court of Appeal ruled that prayer during football games was unconstitutional. Certiorari was approved by the United States Supreme Court.
The case was disputed before the Supreme Court on March 29, 2000. In a six to three verdict, the Supreme Court held that the policy disrupted the Establishment Clause. The bench decided after conducting a two-part coercion analysis that was previously done in Lee v. Weisman (1992). The litmus test that first examined whether the state is involved in the prayers, and second, examination was whether it was a result of substantial coercion of non-adherents. The Court established that both the test were met. The court rejected the argument proposed by the school district of letting the students decide whether to pray was a sign that the state is not involved. The court noted that the settings in which the prayer was conducted, in addition to being a school funded function and the utility of public address system of the school, brings a clear picture of state involvement (530 U.S. 290, 2000). The conclusion of the court was a keen observer would perceive the prayer as being approval from the school.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court established that the pre-game prayer had state involvement and not primarily speech by a student. Therefore the court elaborated reasons to why it was coercive and considered unconstitutional. The school argument of football games being voluntary and had no state coercion was rejected because it was established that most of the students are required to attend the games. The Court acknowledged the critical role played by involvement in extra-curricular activities, however, noted that the state should not take advantage of this to coerce attendance and participation in religious exercise. The court summarized its judgment by giving two reasons why the prayer was invalid. First, the purpose of the policy was apparently promoting prayer, which violates the Establishment Clause. Second, the court stated the policy was invalid since the election process allowed for majority imposing religion on the minority.
In conclusion, the court said that the program violated part one of the Lemon test as in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which specified that a decree is null and void if it lacks secular purpose of legislative. The only goal found in the policy was an endorsement of a prayer lead student. Therefore, the court concluded that the pregame football prayer undermined the First Amendment of the Establishment Clause. The Fifth Circuit ruling was upheld.
Reference
530 U.S. 290. (2000). SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE, individually and as next friend for her minor children, et al . Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
